<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Court's opinion attached...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I would be interested in seeing the parties' briefing, which I'm too lazy to look for at the moment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In this case, the Supreme Court (unanimous decision!) reversed the Court of Appeals' affirmation of the trial court, and found that the trial court did not
have authority ("jurisdiction") under RCW 11.68.110 or under TEDRA (Ch. 11.96A RCW) in general to construe the Will terms contrary to the PR's own interpretation, where the PR has non-intervention powers expressly granted in the Will, and the Will had further
provisions stating expressly that the Testator (A) granted the PR authority to "construe the Will," (B) did not want the Estate to be burdened with the cost of litigation, (C) did not want this plaintiff in particular (son Glen) to "contest, challenge, or
harass my PR" (PR is other son, Todd).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">What happened is, the Will contained a clause specifically giving a parcel of real property to Glen, but giving Todd the option to buy it "from my estate" for
$350,000. The residue clause divided everything else in three equal shares between the three children. Todd interpreted this to mean that he could pay the Estate $350,000, which then went to Estate residue and was split three ways--so he got a third of his
purchase money back in addition to getting the property. Glen protested this was not correct and the intent was for Todd to pay
<u>Glen</u> the $350,000.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Todd filed his Declaration of Completion, and Glen filed an objection to closure and request for review of fees and an accounting, per RCW 11.68.110. Glen then
also filed a TEDRA petition requesting an order construing the Will, invoking <a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.12.230">
RCW 11.12.230</a>, and saying that Todd was self-dealing, breaching his fiduciary duties, and defeating the Testator's intent. There appears to have been a single hearing on both the objection and the TEDRA Petition, and the Court said it had authority under
RCW 11.68.070, or in the alternative under RCW 11.96A.080, to construe the Will. The Court agreed with Glen against the PR and awarded fees.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Court of Appeals affirmed, and Supremes reversed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">My interpretation of the Supreme's holding is:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Where a PR is granted non-intervention powers (NPs), a court has no role in the administration of the estate except under narrow, statutorily created exceptions
that give limited authority to intervene; and therefore,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> (1) a petition for review of fees or accounting or both filed in response to a Declaration of Completion (<a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.68.110">RCW
11.68.110(2)</a>) grants authority only to review fees, or require an accounting, or both, and does not allow the court to construe the Will;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> (2) where a plaintiff expressly rejects reliance on
<a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.68.070">RCW 11.68.070</a> (regarding misconduct of a PR) to remove the PR or restrict NPs, the court may not itself invoke that statute to find authority to construe the Will; and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> (3) TEDRA
<u>by itself</u> does not grant authority to the court to construe the Will and override the PR's construal of the Will; TEDRA does not supersede the statutes outlining the scope of non-intervention powers, and so any challenge to a PR with NPs brought under
TEDRA must also invoke one of the "narrow, statutorily created exceptions" that allow the court to intervene after NPs have been granted.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thoughts:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I really hope this one gets narrowed to its facts, particularly the fact that the Will specifically said that the Testator did not want this particular plaintiff
to litigate against the PR. Otherwise, it creates all kinds of procedural traps in probate litigation that seem to me to be clearly contrary to the broad jurisdictional and "plenary authority" grants under TEDRA, especially RCW 11.96A.020, .040, .060, and
.080.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">RCW 11.96A.080 in particular appears to me to be an express grant to all interested parties that they may, essentially, invoke the jurisdiction of the court
as to any "matter" as defined by TEDRA. But this opinion ignores that, and instead asserts (without citation to authority) that "The power to administer an estate and 'construe' a will's directions lies with the personal representative in a nonintervention
probate--not the courts." p. 15.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The key quote that will hereafter be continually quoted out of context and will grow to swallow all of Ch. 11.96A, is p. 16:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">"<b>TEDRA</b> acts to supplement, not supplant, other statutory provisions and
<b>is not an independent basis to invoke the authority of superior courts over nonintervention wills</b>."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I don't see how that can be reconciled with the broad jurisdiction under
<a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.96A&full=true#11.96A.020">
RCW 11.96A.020</a> and the broad right to have a hearing on "any matter" under <a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.96A&full=true#11.96A.080">
RCW 11.96A.080</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I also don't see how that can be reconciled with the mediation and arbitration procedures under
<a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.96A&full=true#11.96A.280">
RCW 11.96A.280</a> et seq. If TEDRA isn't an independent basis to invoke court jurisdiction over a PR with NPs, how can the PR be compelled to mediate or arbitrate a dispute?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Eric<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Eric C. Nelsen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">1417 31st Ave South<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Seattle WA 98144-3909<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">phone 206-625-0092<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">fax 206-625-9040<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Yip<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:37 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBAPT] Thoughts on Rathbone's impact on probate practice in WA?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am just wondering if you have any thoughts on the possible impacts that the Washington Supreme Court's opinion in Rathbone, issued today, might have on probate practice in Washington.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>